The meaning of words and the political significance of dictionaries have been, oddly enough, among the most debated topics in Australian politics over the past week. And the word on everyone's lips of late is misogyny.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, the debate soon became mired in its least interesting aspect - namely, the dynamic tension between etymology and popular usage. It should go without saying that words adapt and adopt new resonances and connotations, and moreover, that the widespread use of "misogyny" now exceeds its original meaning. What is far more interesting is not that misogyny has acquired this more general sense, but why it has done so.

Increasingly over the past two decades or so, borderline, well-nigh pathological designations have become mainstream, no doubt for their rhetorical poignancy or "cut through." The result is that our public discourse is now cluttered with glittery, arresting but essentially junk-terms like "misogynist," "homophobe," "fascist," "bigot" and "racist." On one level, this is merely symptomatic of the more general hyperbolization of language today (such that "criticises" becomes "slams," "concern" becomes "alarm," and "affected" becomes "impacted"). But there is something else at play here, it seems to me.

We've reached a point in our national life where our most basic moral disputes over competing visions of what is good can no longer be addressed in straightforwardly moral terms. So, for example:

Is it better for a political representative to have children, or does the decision not to have children point to a more profound sense of calling and devotion to political office?

Is it possible to accord full recognition, dignity and indeed honour to homosexual relationships without strictly equating them with a more socially normative heterosexuality?

Should schooling attend to the inculcation of certain virtues and values (and if so, which ones and why), or is education best restricted to the production of "economically useful machines," as Martha Nussbaum puts it?

Does the very existence of vulnerable others (such as the stateless refugee, the unwanted unborn, or the high-need elderly) impose a prior moral constraint on our freedom, or are relationships only ever binding when we choose them?

To address such questions requires a degree of patience and empathy (not exactly qualities we have in abundance at the moment). Above all it requires careful discrimination: a recognition and appreciation of differences, and the deliberative judgment of some things as good, better and best - not just good and bad. But as Jean-Claude Michea has argued in his astonishing book The Realm of Lesser Evil, the fundamental wager of liberalism is that disagreement over competing moral visions is best managed by expelling moral criteria per se from the public space. Precisely because moral disagreement cannot be adjudicated - for to do so would be to curtail or somehow diminish one lifestyle choice over against another - the only way to maintain civic equilibrium is to equate both sides of any disagreement as just so many choices; for the social order, in other words, to adopt a position of absolute neutrality.

But liberalism's perpetual "war against all discriminations," as Michea calls it, is not without its collateral damage. This indiscriminate flattening-out of substantive moral disagreement leaves only discrimination itself excluded from public debate, or else vilified under such ubiquitous smears as "misogynist," "homophobe," "bigot" or whatever. When the rhetorical volume gets cranked up to this level, not only does it neutralize any shared capacity for nuance, for appreciation, for persuasion, for authentic disagreement - it also leaves the underlying convictions themselves unaddressed. This is a brutal way, not of settling debates, but of ensuring they don't take place at all.

In other words, far from rendering public discourse somehow amoral or neutral, the effect of what I am tempted to call liberal censorship is a "claustrophobic, oppressive moralism brimming with resentment," as Slavoj Zizek has recently argued.

"Without any 'organic' social substance grounding the standards of what George Orwell approvingly referred to as 'common decency', the minimalist program of laws intended to do little more than prevent individuals from encroaching upon each other (annoying or 'harassing' each other) turns into an explosion of legal and moral rules, an endless process of legalization and moralization."

This brings me to an inescapable paradox. As I recently suggested in a conversation with Waleed Aly, it is precisely the rather promiscuous way that Julia Gillard and many on the left have been throwing around the term "misogynist," along with our inability to talk intelligibly about sexual difference and complementarity, that creates the context within which the kind of chauvinism and sexist innuendo employed by Tony Abbott can proliferate. Likewise, to use a different example, it is the smug dismissal of every moral objection to marriage equality out of hand as somehow "homophobic" or "bigoted" that cultivates the unreconstructed bigotry of the likes of Cory Bernardi and Jim Wallace.

The left ("self-righteous as war," to gloss Les Murray) and the right ("brimming with resentment") are thus both complicit in our current political deadlock; and things are certainly not helped by the sub-rational stampede of social media, which thunders indiscriminately, fecklessly from one glitzy cause to the next.

Over against this suffocating pseudo-moralism, what is needed is to reintroduce authentic moral disagreement into public debate, to risk offending our liberal sensibilities by arguing for a better way, to refuse simply to "live and let live." It is only through such substantive, radical disagreement that a shared moral horizon might slowly come into view.

Actions

Share

Comments (140)

Romony :

03 Nov 2012 5:00:17pm

You actually haven't explained how alleged hyperbole creates a proliferation of bigotry. Considering that racism, sexism, homophobia were rife throughout our societies prior to the liberalisation of attitudes in recent decades, evidence would suggest the opposite. They still are rife, but are certainly less prevalent since the victims have found courage in naming and shaming it, thus leading to a change in attitudes. As to the specific example of Gillard, your accusation that it is a smear would only make sense if she hadn't given a long list of specific examples. So is Tony Abbott a misogynist? Put it this way, liking women just as long as they worship you, work beneath you and don't have control over their own lives is hardly philogyny.

Fraufrau :

02 Nov 2012 4:42:14am

I don't know about Scott Stephens thinks he is talking about. The kind of misogyny, in the traditional sense, that Tony Abbott has lent his support to, by, for instance, standing in front of those signs, was proliferating before the speech. In fact, Tony Abbott speech has had me gobsmacked for months. Thank goodness she has put a lid on it. The press certainly wasn't. I don't see them taking the Libs to task for calling the PM a liar - but call the Leader of the Opposition a misogynist, now there is something to quizz and question.

Alfred :

01 Nov 2012 3:51:18pm

Social policy is always a difficult topic because people are very emotionally attached to their views. You never see logical or even respectful debates from the left or the right on these issues, it's always a bunch of ad-hominem slurs from both sides.

If you think child support laws are too unfair or believe in a nuclear family model then the left will label you a misogynist. Vice Versa if you support same-sex marriage, abortion on demand or faultless divorce, the right will accuse you of destroying the moral fabric of society.

Libertarianism for all its faults is the only political philosophy that has a sensible view on social policy. A view that is based on reason rather than emotion.

Chrys Stevenson :

"Is it possible to accord full recognition, dignity and indeed honour to homosexual relationships without strictly equating them with a more socially normative heterosexuality?"

I couldn't help time travelling back to America in the 60s where this quote morphed into:

"Is it possible to accord full recognition, dignity and indeed honour to our negro neighbors without strictly equating them with more socially normative Caucasian Americans?"

I'm sorry, Scott, but there is far too much "I'm not homophobic, but ...""I'm not misogynistic but ..." going on in this article.

All the fancy words and clever side-shuffling don't take away from the basic argument of the 'sub-rational stampede of social media' that discriminating against or maligning people on the basis of their sexual identity or gender should not be tolerated in modern society. And yes, if you argue against this you are, indeed, homophobic and/or misogynistic (according to the current usage of those words).

Let us hope for a time when what the 'sub rational' social media is demanding today is no more controversial than suggesting that no person should be discriminated against or maligned on the basis of the colour of their skin.

Back in the 50s and 60s there were surely a lot of people vehemently insisting that their opposition to equality and integration for black Americans wasn't based on racism at all! How terrible to be branded racist when all you wanted was for the blacks to be kept in their place on the other side of the train tracks!

Take for example, this anti-segregation statement, signed by 80 eighty ministers of religion in Arkansas:

“This statement is not made with any enmity or hatred in our hearts for the Negro race. We have an abiding love for all people . . . [But] [w]e believe that the best interests of all races are served by segregation …We resent the implication by certain liberal ministers that it is un-Christian to oppose integration. We believe that integration is contrary to the will of God … is based on a false theory of the ‘universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.’ We believe that integration is not only un-Christian, but that it violates all sound sociological principles and is not supported by Scripture or by biological facts.”

Mike :

01 Nov 2012 11:15:24am

Yes quite correct:-http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misogynist?q=misogynistbut the main thrust of this article is to do with free speech. Do you believe in free speech? If you do, you should be outraged and hugely concerned by how certain vested interest have been able to shut it down in this country. Unfortunately the Labor party has shown it’s roots of late by still hanging on to it’s Marxist, atheist, anti-Christian beginnings without appreciating that it was the moral outrage of many people, largely including Christians, who reacted to the obvious unfairness of “Work Choices” ,who put them into power. We now have the stupid situation where both the Labor and Liberal parties have embraced capitalist principles as some sort of panacea that should even be used in running education, not to mention electricity etc. No wonder they all appear so confused. If the Labor party is to argue for penalty rates, how on earth can they do it on any basis other than our Judeo/Christian heritage of the Sabbath? Our heritage is something very precious that many Australians just seem to not appreciate. The main reason Russian Communism failed so dramatically was because it was intrinsically corrupt. The reason the west’s capitalist system won out is because, at the time, it allowed more freedom, including freedom of speech (and religion) and was, at the time, somewhat less corrupt. Wake up Australia if you don’t want us to fall into tyranny by allowing the principle of shutting down free speech, no matter which system is used, it can only ever promote corruption.

Novelactivist :

02 Nov 2012 8:56:41am

Mike,

Perhaps you would benefit from reading a history of the Labor party rather than rely on your rather vivid imagination. Yes, the Labor party embraced socialism, but if you recall, there was the small matter of the DLP. And what was that about again?

The problem for the modern Labor party is that it has once again fallen into the hands of the 'right' - a coalition of hard pragmatists and the religious (who demanded a conscience vote on same sex marriage).

mike :

02 Nov 2012 11:22:45am

The Labor party pragmatic? About the only thing they're pragmatic about is staying in power. Every time they try to be pragmatic they invariably leave a trail of corruption, failed opportunities and wasted public funds and of late, even deaths and then lie to cover up the mess. I am thankful at least under Julia Gillard there have been fewer than average stuff ups, not as bad as Kevin Rudd or Paul Keating yet but still the penny hasn’t quite dropped as to what is wrong with the doctrines. But just like the Liberals stuffed up when they were given control of the Senate I think perhaps the only reason the Labor government hasn’t wrecked things more is simply because they don’t have any room to move. It seems the only way to keep the idiots in Canberra from making a complete mess of things is to nail their feet to the floor. Everybody in Australia knows it. Why do you think both parties and leaders have such low opinion poll ratings?

Post Had Men :

02 Nov 2012 1:47:35pm

"What is wrong with the doctrines?"Would that be across the board of all denominations, philosophies and parties? Remember to keep your answers brief to the point and by the way I'm on your side despite being a woman.

LorieW :

01 Nov 2012 10:28:43am

This article is all very nice and on the surface sounds quite reasonable, however, the characterisation of the Prime Minister "and others on the left throwing around the term "mysogynist" ", is both wrong and disrepectful. Firstly, the Prime Minister does not "throw around" the term mysogynist, in fact, her brilliant speech in Parliament, was the first time I can recall the PM using the term in her dealings with Mr. Abbott or anyone else; and secondly, Tony Abbott has proven by his behaviour in the past and the present, that he is indeed a mysogynist in the true sense of the word and should be named as such.

Walker :

31 Oct 2012 10:19:38pm

Never mind small-l liberals and their tagging people who disagree with various labels, which is a real bother when they take that too far and to quash real debate. That much fair enough, where it is really so.

But it all might be more to do with the large-L Liberals ditching too many big M Malcolms.

HUGH :

Chris W :

02 Nov 2012 4:08:34pm

Maybe He-Man will finally understand "as ye sow, so shall ye reap". But as you say, probably he won't stop pedalling viciously in his race to the bottom for power."Anger, fear, aggression.. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.." [Yoda]

sidlaw :

31 Oct 2012 3:38:35pm

I was recently confronted with the following crossword clue. Five letters beginning with 'L' and the clue was 'Julia Gillard's seat'. Of course the answer is Lalor but if my immediate reaction was 'large' does this make me a sexist, misogynist or merely an honest observer?

LORIEW :

ty :

The only people who ever seem to really get into the definition of words as per a dictionary are Americans and people who learn English as a second language.

From what I gather the reason these two groups do so are basically the same.

Somebody new to English needs definitions to understand the language and may come from a background where the native language is more or less set in stone like French for instance and may get quite upset when anybody doesn't stick to the dictionary.

The reason Americans like dictionary difinitions is the ethnic makeup like Australia is wide but unlike Australia where we more or less have kept the English tradition of letting the words themselves evolve with usage the Americans have attempted to pin words down again like the French.Possibly this goes back to looking to France at the time they broke away from the British Empire (as seen in the American pronounciation of Bernard for eg) even though that well and truely predated any dictionarys the principle of pining down words was set and has remained.

The main thing of course is when it comes to the English language go with the flow.

Mike :

31 Oct 2012 12:14:05pm

So Julia Gillard is a victim of misogyny? She already has one of the top jobs in the country with power, prestige a near $1m salary package and benefits into perpetuity. I wish I was half as much a victim. I wasn’t going to say anything because Julia would still be in mourning for her dad and deep inside I am a feminist (don’t tell my wife – she would say very deep inside but I think she is sexist and of course no woman believes a man when he says that) but I must admit I was taken aback by Julia’s statements, especially when we have blokes in Afganistan who are actually putting their lives on the line for freedom. How many feminists have died so they can have equality? Zero? Yes Julia you’ve had to fight a little. So what? That’s your job. To me her whingeing and whining does feminism a disservice. Her ploys are obviously designed to stir up the women’s vote but I think the majority of Australians will see straight through this and she and feminism will be diminished in their eyes, both male and female … but maybe she thinks slinging mud at Tony Abbot is worth it.

Obviously a person can be loving and nurturing towards women and still be sexist so misogyny does not equal sexism despite what a proportion of the world’s feminists may think. Believing someone is not capable or qualified in an area without a valid reason is not the same as hating them.

Pam :

Mike, you seem to think that because Julia Gillard is PM with a generous salary she therefore cannot be the victim of misogyny? And you also say "deep inside I am a feminist"? Cough splutter.

Firstly, Tony Abbott's sexist remarks about her personal status were intolerable and extremely rude. He repeatedly calls her a "liar" not seeing that he falls, as we all do, into the same category. And now we have the editor of this website using the term "promiscuous" in relation to her remarks. Julia was not "whingeing and whining" - she was standing up to a disrespectful man in her workplace. I think she should have taken this case to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

Bill Anderson :

30 Oct 2012 7:46:04pm

I recentley attended the graduation ceremony of my sons high school. Out of 36 awards 2 were given to boys. No mention of the inequality of this situation was mentioned. The only white boy to get an award was the dux. Go figure? Like most of the other fellows however, I realised that to mention this blatantly sexist situation was to invite armageddon. So, like everyone I kept quite. I have 5 children, 4 are boys. I couldn't sllep the entire night.

Chris W :

31 Oct 2012 10:08:07am

That's not a new concern (or sexism) - there's been newspaper articles worrying about the cohort of boys not doing so well academically in that meritocracy. Dunno if it has lead to any positive discrimination sexist programs. Learnt last night apparently there may be an interesting societal shift underway beyond this: www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/end-of-menrise-of-women/4329724

Jayel :

Walker :

31 Oct 2012 9:20:32pm

I might suggest a more thorough and wider view of the situation that brought this to bear, is warranted, and with that understanding you could then act. Until then you don't know if you're seeing a real pattern or just an event.

At any rate I don't think anyone would disagree that boys need support, care, trustworthy mateship, role models, encouragement, esteem, all those things, that's very true and proclaiming a problem in one area shouldn't mutually exclude a need in another area.

Having said that I remember some of my best teachers, some were male some were female, as long as they treated us right and inspired us, without dividing us against each other, that's what counted for me.

Walker :

31 Oct 2012 9:24:34pm

But to further the point as this article goes, I can see that you'd want to be able to call it, where you see it, as the prime minister says she does, if you had gone to that event after a year or two of constant undue negative feedback and put-downs against the boys.

And yes you'd find it hard to do so! Which seems maybe the point here, when do we actually get to the point of really sorting out what's really going on once we find it, if its there.

Denys :

30 Oct 2012 4:49:15pm

I agree with the author that the meaning of the word "misogyny" is lost in the current political debate.

What I find difficult to accept is that it seems only female politicians can criticise men by labelling some political men as "misogynist". What about women who are sexists? Do men have the right to label them as such ?

Novelactivist :

So much of this argument over the correct usage of the word misogyny is pedantry.

The way that Gillard used it has been around for decades. 'Hatred' of women doesn't have to overt, it can be covert and quite subtle.

But once again, it seems we have a coterie of men telling women what misogyny means.

The true love of women means supporting them to reach their full potential, as they define it. Love isn't supporting women on the condition that they conform to the expectations of others. That kind of 'love' is actually of form of control and hatred.

Hudson Godfrey :

Jayel :

30 Oct 2012 11:47:24am

<...it is precisely the rather promiscuous way that Julia Gillard and many on the left have been throwing around the term "misogynist," along with our inability to talk intelligibly about sexual difference and complementarity, that creates the context within which the kind of chauvinism and sexist innuendo employed by Tony Abbott can proliferate. Likewise, to use a different example, it is the smug dismissal of every moral objection to marriage equality out of hand as somehow "homophobic" or "bigoted" that cultivates the unreconstructed bigotry of the likes of Cory Bernardi and Jim Wallace.>

This passage jumped out at me.If we're bringing in a 'chicken or egg first' kind of argument, my feeling is that you've got it back-to-front and are almost at the point of victim-blaming. Although I agree that overuse and misuse of strong words results in their being watered down and reduces their ability to relay certain sentiments, perhaps it is a matter of women and same-sex oriented people having long used less strong language to little avail. Of course, some will never want to or be able to understand or change their perspective on issues, as is their choice, but in the face of intransigence some may regard using words the next rank up in terms of fire-power justifiable, particularly in the face of those so-called 'moral objections' (according to the morals of whom???) to marriage equality.

martin :

30 Oct 2012 9:55:48am

The real questions is:"Are the misogynists, racists, homophobes, war-mongerers and bigots BETTER ECONOMIC managers ?"Although the economy can do very well without what they call "management" - poor language-management, I suppose?

Mike :

29 Oct 2012 1:21:32pm

Aha. Lol. I see what you did there. By calling Cory Bernardi a bigot you demonstrated how we write people off without addressing their arguments. In his case; how do we define marriage if it is no longer to do with procreation? If equality is the argument, don’t people who want to marry their cousin or mother or children or their Porche deserve “equality” too? And in the case of Jim Wallace; should society be involved in promoting something that even their own statistics show, is unhealthy. As a Christian and knowing that the Bible essentially writes-off unrepentant homosexuals, as far as eternal life is concerned (yes people - homosexuality is a sin), he would be a complete hypocrite if he did not oppose homosexual marriage, yet we just label him a bigot and a homophobe and so no longer need to address his arguments.Any argument may seem reasonable until someone comes up to oppose it. So let’s promote robust, logical arguments using the real meaning of words. A misogynist is a woman hater not someone who is sexist.

Mercurius :

29 Oct 2012 7:32:32pm

I'll take your advice and promote "robust, logical argument based on the real meaning of words." The real meaning of "marriage" has nothing to do with procreation, since a marriage without children is of equal legal and for that matter religious status as one without; and furthermore being unmarried is no legal (or for that matter religious) impediment to having children. Since your argument is based on a false definition, so every conclusion you draw starting from that premise is invalid. As for Jim Wallace, if he wants to base civil laws on what it says in the Bible, he should go and find a theocracy to live in. And he should probably stop eating shellfish too. Afghanistan or Iran would suit his mind-set.

CC :

30 Oct 2012 12:34:59pm

Are we talking about the 'meaning' of marriage or the 'purpose' of marriage? I think you'll find the purpose is more important than the definition; and the ultimate purpose of marriage has always been to provide a stable platform for the successful raising of children. Ultimately, a marriage without children serves very little purpose.

James Picone :

30 Oct 2012 1:40:35pm

The purpose of marriage has very little to do with raising children. As Miowarra pointed out, it used to be an economic arrangement - nowadays, it serves as a convenient mechanism for ensuring that certain rights are afforded to partners (visitation when sick, that kind of thing).

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 10:00:39am

Mike was in error in claiming; "...how do we define marriage if it is no longer to do with procreation?" Mike, it never was. Marriage was always about the orderly transfer of land and other property between generations and families without resorting to bloodshed. Remember that through most of (Western) history, marriage was only indulged in by the landed, wealthy classes, up until about the 16thC.

Before the 11thC, the Church (and there was only the Roman sect) refused to celebrate marriages at all as "a licence for carnality" (which they opposed) and only allowed marriage parties to use the steps of the churches, not the interiors. Most couples, being peasants and not landholders or wealthy didn't bother with more than the betrothal announcement (which is where the requirement for two witnesses originated).

Not My Real Name :

31 Oct 2012 8:30:46am

Miowarra

Sorry to be blunt but that is one of the most bizarrely unconvincing pieces of argument I've seen in a long time.

Besides being wildly historically inaccurate, even if it WAS true it wouldn't prove anything. Marriage between men and women is a basic social reality which exists in all cultures and has existed in all historical periods that we know of. It's reality does not depend on the existence of the state or any other institution such as the church.

Of course the state and other institutions have tried to regulate it in different ways but that is irrelevant. The sun still comes up in the morning whether the state tries to regulate time zones and daylight savings or not. Marriage still exists whether the state exists or not, or tries to regulate it or not.

Walker :

31 Oct 2012 9:38:25pm

I'd love to see an anthropologist's view on this. Its an area of study most of us don't get to see much. David Maybury Lewis, in my opinion, did for anthropology what Carl Sagan did for astronomy and science in general.

I'm pretty sure there is and has been a lot more going on, which can be functional and work within the society, than many of us cocooned in our ways, might be led to believe.

(Not at all to suggest that ours are inferior, but just to broaden the picture at least).

Miowarra :

31 Oct 2012 12:02:56pm

NMRN insisted; "...even if it WAS true it wouldn't prove anything."

Pity, I have a swathe of online references to the accuracy of my historical summary that I am able to post (Moderators permitting) but you pre-empt the need by refusing to accept facts "...even if it WAS true...". (That's a perfect example of bigotry, BTW.)

OK. You stick to your religiously-inspired prejudices and adhere to the lies you've been told from the pulpits but they do not give you permission to impose those prejudices on other people.

However, the relevance of state regulation of marriage is *exactly* what this debate over marriage equality is all about. It's the guts of the whole problem. Once the state regulates to allow same-sex marriage, all the fury and counter-argument just goes away overnight.

Not My Real Name :

31 Oct 2012 11:08:00pm

Miowarra

Perhaps I've misunderstood your post, but it certainly seems to claim that the only church group that existed before the 11th century was the Roman church, which is of course simply not true. Anyone who has studied the history of that era will know that. It's got nothing to do with 'religiously inspired prejudices'. So whatever events you're referring to, it isn't possible to generalise from them about any historical church perspective on marriage.

And I stick to my point that none of this has anything substantive to do with the nature of marriage. Novelactivist has said that there is some difference between 'coupling' and 'marriage', such that some cultures never get beyond mere 'coupling'. Besides sounding very ethnocentric, that would be a difficult view to support empirically. I can't think of a cultural group which doesn't have a formalised idea of marriage different to mere 'coupling'. And this formalisation often has nothing to do with Western fascinations such as property ownership. The distinction between 'coupling' and marriage runs right through human society.

So if you want to maintain that marriage in its very essence is no more than a Western legal construct you will need to deal with the empirical evidence a lot more carefully. I believe.

Miowarra :

01 Nov 2012 2:43:06pm

NMRN returned to the field; "...it certainly seems to claim that the only church group that existed before the 11th century was the Roman church, which is of course simply not true..."Note that in the previous paragraph I DID specify that I was referring to Western history. The Coptic and Orthodox (Greek or Russian) churches weren't especially relevant in that time and place.

If you have any other reasons for opposing same-sex marriage now that the fallacy you initially proposed (that "it's about children") has been demolished, please set them forth with whatever supporting evidence you feel you need.

Your attempt to divert discussion to a separate point made by Novelactivist is ignored. Take that up with Novelactivist. It's not my point nor am I prepared to argue it.

I also ignore your strawman argument that I claimed that "marriage...is no more than a Western legal construct...". That was not my claim and I will not permit you to introduce that false categorisation of my argument into our discussion.

I will agree that there is a social aspect to betrothals and marriage which fosters and reinforces social bonds between families - except in the times and places where consent of the parties (usually the bride) was not required and a successful abduction and rape was accepted as a marriage.

You may be interested to know that is the origin of the custom of providing the groom with a best man and groomsmen, his henchmen to hold off the bride's family members until the marriage was consummated. That custom and interpretation of canon law was, admittedly more common in the Ottonian German "Holy Roman Empire" than in England, but it certainly applied in Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

To stretch a point, the "social bonds between families" could conceivably be long-lasting feuds and hatred.

ty :

Hudson Godfrey :

30 Oct 2012 5:13:29pm

Mike,

I think what you believe is wrong, make no bones about that, it's 100% rolled gold bug-nutty in my book. Nor from what you wrote have you left me in much doubt that you fully intend to disrespect my views no matter what I say. When it comes to religion lets just take it as read that we share no common ground whatsoever.

Great.

Now that we're clear about that, what are we going to do about this society we share? Unless you want to stage pogroms or start a civil war I suggest we have to be tolerant of other people's view and work within the secular democratic framework we're all familiar with to get things done, including the occasional tweak to a social institution, like marriage, that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Tim :

29 Oct 2012 10:44:35am

"This is a brutal way, not of settling debates, but of ensuring they don't take place at all."

And yet Gillard's speech has generated intense debate both nationally and internationally, not only on inherent sexism and/or misogyny, but the lively area between the prescriptive and the descriptive use of language. For that reason alone, whatever your flavour of politics, Gillard should be considered an inspirational leader.

rob1966 :

29 Oct 2012 12:14:03pm

Gillard could be seen as an "inspirational speaker" as a result of that speech, but I would question whether she could be seen as an "inspirational leader"; especially given the subject that the speech was "defending" (ie Slipper), and the particularly personal nature of her attack on Abbott.

However, if nothing else, the speech served the purpose for which it was written (yes, it was a prepared speech, as any review of it will clearly show as she repeatedly refers to her notes) - it has rejuvenated the Labor faithful.

rob1966 :

30 Oct 2012 2:24:31pm

Sorry, but there are certain standards to which MPs must be held; and those standards are even higher when MPs fill important roles within our Parliamentary system.

The texts written by Slipper - and presented as evidence in a court case that is on-going - clearly demonstrated that the man was unfit for the role of Speaker. The Constitution provides for that in removing a person from that role.

dougk :

30 Oct 2012 10:03:28am

Rob1996,If you think Gillard was defending Slipper then you were not really "listening" to her speech at all. Do you understand the concept of "natural justice"? This is something Abbott & Co were improperly trying so hard to deny Slipper.You should know that Gillard, like other contributors to the parliamentary debate, were basing their criticisms of Slipper on the media reports of Slipper's texts. These media reports were almost entirely incorrect: attributing words to Slipper which were not his, getting the timing of the events wrong and generally distorting the whole episode. Perhaps you are comfortable with trial by misrepresentation? I am not.

rob1966 :

30 Oct 2012 2:22:17pm

I'm sorry, but it is you who are "in error".

The call to dismiss Slipper as Speaker was made based on transcripts of texts sent by Slipper, and submitted as evidence in the case between Slipper and Ashby. Slipper had acknowledged that those texts were correct, and had been sent by him.

This has nothing to do with "natural justice", or indeed the case between Slipper and Ashby (other than indirectly) which is still on-going. It is about a man, who was filling one of the highest (and supposedly respected) roles in our political system participating int he production and distribution of lewd, offensive and sexist material.

dougk :

30 Oct 2012 4:11:51pm

So Rob,

Which are the text messages that you claim Slipper sent that are so egregious that he need to be dismissed? Which ones are lewd, offensive and sexist? Can you point me to the evindence where Slipper "acknowledged" the press reports of the texts were correct?

I have read the entire transcripts of texts on the court site (and all other case documents published there as well). I know that they do not match what most of the newspapers reported.

Incidentally I disagree with almost everything Slipper stands for and abhor his use of language - though I thought he was not bad as Speaker. But any dislike of Slipper (mine or yours) should not preclude his entitlement to the natural justice you wished to deny him. For natural justice to occur the decision maker (in this case parliament) should afford the affected person the opportunity to be heard. The decision maker is meant to be disinterested.

Not My Real Name :

29 Oct 2012 1:41:09pm

But the whole point of this article (and the works it refers to) is that liberalism doesn't deliver what it promises. It simply creates new forms of intolerance and muddies the waters of honest disagreement in the public sphere.

So saying that liberalism argues for tolerance and diversity is beside the point. The real question is - what does it actually achieve? The fact is that in actual practise liberalism can be just as illiberal as any conservative position. That reality is before us now in various debates in this country where so-called liberals are vociferous in their attempts to shut down debate, or even deny that those with other, more conservative views have anything at all to say.

Not My Real Name :

29 Oct 2012 7:55:54pm

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can avoid the issues so simply. The problem isn't that people haven't lived up to the ideals of liberalism. The problem is that liberal ideals carried to their logical conclusion create real problems for society.

I guess the basic issue is that it simply isn't possible to be 'liberal' about anything and everything. For instance, how much do you tolerate intolerance? The basic meaning of the word 'tolerate' is to put up with what you don't like or agree with, so even if you don't like intolerance of others, as a liberal you should put up with it.

But that would create the very world that liberals don't want. And so the only really logical solution is to try to stamp out as much as possible things that smack of illiberalism. As almost everything that goes on in the world can be interpreted as in some way intolerant or illiberal, liberalism soon leads to a widespread effort to shut down opinions which run counter to its ideals - which is pretty much where we are at in public debate today.

Novelactivist :

30 Oct 2012 8:58:47am

Again, you misunderstand liberalism. If I understand my history correctly, liberalism did not tolerate the intolerance of fascism or communism in Europe. Id I am correct I think there may have been a bit of a skirmish to defeat fascism.

Not My Real Name :

30 Oct 2012 1:33:55pm

You seem to be agreeing with my point. Liberalism can't tolerate intolerance, and therefore it is intolerant itself, and cannot avoid being so. i.e. the problem isn't just not sticking to liberal ideas.

This is not simply a theoretical problem. The spread of so-called liberal ideas since the sixties has led to more and more intolerance of open debate and the expressing of views other than those that are deemed politically correct by liberalism. All I can say again is that Scott's main point still stands.

Mine's A Newt :

What liberals actually do, when people promote bigotry against women, gays and lesbians, etc, is argue against them. We point out bigoted nonsense and authoritarian theocratic nonsense, for what it is.

It's called free speech. That's part of a vibrant democratic system. Sometimes, the opinions I hold are defeated, politically. For example, as a "liberal", I despise legislation preventing discussion of racial or religious matters, and I think having laws against holocaust denial is a huge own goal, because it makes martyrs of a few pathetic neo-Nazi nutcases.

So I argue against those laws, and hope they get repealed.

But this argument, about gay marriage, liberals are winning, hands down. That's why the likes of Stephens are whining. But they're not facing "censorship", they're facing free speech.

So that contradiction you're pointing out: it applies to your straw man, and not an actual liberal position.

Not My Real Name :

30 Oct 2012 10:32:23pm

Sorry, but I don't think you've quite grasped the point at issue here. The problem isn't about censorship as such, but liberals setting up the framework of 'debate' in a way that actually excludes careful debate.

Note the two methods alluded to in your post. First of all, in regard to people who disagree with you, you use the word 'nonsense'. You are not willing to accept that other people may have valid premisses or lines of reasoning which are different to yours and yet deserve polite and careful listening and response. You simply dismiss other views as nonsense, i.e. views which it is impossible to even interact with in a sensible way.

The other form of 'debate' you refer to is simply political defeat, again a process which does not require careful intellectual thought and debate. It's just a matter of who wins a voting competition, an event notoriously lacking in nuanced intellectual interaction.

I believe neither of these approaches are adequate in a democratic society. And shouting 'free speech' is not germane to the point. The question is 'what kind of use of free speech will be best for the functioning of democratic society?' As we look at debate in society today, it has become less and less focussed on debate over ideas and more and more focussed on either emotionally charged name calling or political lobbying, and those with a liberal agenda seem to be the ones driving this approach, so I don't think we are talking about a straw man here.

Mine's A Newt :

1 This thread is comments on a piece by Stephens, complaining about "liberal censorship". You're making a different claim, but you don't get to declare that the claim you're making is "the point".

2 Your ad hominem is that I can't accept that any disagree with me could be sensible or worth paying attention to. I'm afraid your ad hom is a faith claim, and false. For example, people disagree with me about taxation, gun laws, all sorts of things, without me thinking they're simply talking nonsense.

But on the gay marriage issue, the "arguments" advanced by the anti-gay side are so logically inconsistent and incoherent that it's clear that the "arguments" being advanced have nothing to do with their stand on the issue.

Their churches - because it's mostly coming from religious conservatives - have a long and sometimes murderous history of directing hatred against gays and lesbians. This is one last chance to deny them treatment as ordinary human beings.

The churches that most oppose the rights of gays and lesbians to marry do not and cannot come to this debate with clean hands. Nor do they bring honest arguments.

That's an empirical observation. If the arguments weren't so obviously ramshackle, and so obviously a smokescreen for anti-gay and lesbian prejudice, I'd be more polite. But eventually, it's reasonable to weary of the nonsense.

3 As you know, Americans in various states went through this sort of debate as late as the 1970s, on the right of interracial couples to marry. And the opponents of inter-racial marriage struggled to find arguments that weren't too obviously racist.

Now, the first 100 times an advocate for the rights of interracial couples to marry confronted these arguments ("we have nothing against black people, but what about the poor mixed-race children? How will they make friends at school?" etc) they might politely debunk them. But eventually, it's quite appropriate just to dismiss the bigots as bigots and move on from them.

3 What you're missing, with all this head-shaking about people being rude to bigots, is that bigotry causes real harm to living human beings. Anti-gay posturing by clerics and others has lead directly to young people committing suicide. We know that being subject to discrimination and denigration (like Cory Barnardi's likening of homosexuality to bestiality - which you avoided condemning, I note) has serious and measurable effects on people's health.

We know, by now, that attacking gay and lesbian people, treating them as less than equal human beings, isn't just "a mistake" in some abstract argument. It's nasty. It's vicious. It's cruel. It does real harm. Of course it should be fought.

4 So there are moral imperatives here. It's just that the people who are used to arrogating to themselves the name of "morality" are actu

Andersand :

29 Oct 2012 8:43:17am

So we can't say "misogyny" but we can say things like "the sub-rational stampede of social media" and then blame the left's use of language for the right (voodoo dialectics I guess). Etc. This is one of the silliest andn contradictory contributions I've read to the whole debate.

Mine's A Newt :

Seems Stephens is nostalgic for the good old days when bigots and authoritarians could have their spray in the media ("Gay marriage will roon us all" etc), knowing that most people can't answer back.

People in the media, like Stephens, or organised religion, like Jensen, had a one-way megaphone, and a guarantee that no-one would call them on their bigotry. They called that "respect". But it wasn't "respect", it was that most people were silenced.

Now, people like Jensen and Stephens attack the rights of gays to legal equality, they don't get silence. They get answered back.

It's this answering back that they dislike. The discovery that they aren't held in reverence but in derision.

By the way, like a lot of people, I'm still waiting to hear an "argument" against gay people having the right to marry. Try making one up, some time. You might find it a useful mental exercise. Better than whining, for example.

John Smith :

30 Oct 2012 1:23:08pm

Marriage is about children. A childless marriage is just 2 people living together. It does not benefit society. Children have the right, according to the UN to have access to a mother and a father. To allow gay marriage would make it a lot easier to take this Human Right away from children. So gay marriage infringes on childrens rights to please the selfish wants of two gay adults (gay marriage is not a human right according to the UN). The fact is that everyone already has marriage equality. No one in Australia can marry a sibling, parent or child. They can not marry who ever they love, as gay marriage activists claim, they have marriage restrictions as well. So the fact is that if marriage was changed to be about love, then incestious and underage marriages would have to be allowed as marriage is suddenly only about love. There would be no grounds against siblings marrying eachother, as the issue is genetic problems for offspring. However, reproduction and the next generation was not an issue for gay marriage support, so it can't be used when it suits them. Gay marriage will lead to incest and polgamy, as its just about love isnt?

Miowarra :

No, John, it's about property - always was."A childless marriage is just 2 people living together. It does not benefit society. "

It's still a recognised and valid marriage. There is no requirement that ANY marriage has to "benefit society". That's just _your_ fantasy.

The rest of you post is just so logically flawed that it's not worth deconstructing.

Maybe in YOUR mind if same-sex marriage is legalised then underage and incestuous marriages would also have to be legalised but the rest of us can understand that the appropriate clauses of the Marriage Act which prohibit those actions do not have to be deleted.

Mine's A Newt :

First, as has been pointed out a few times, marriage is not about children. People have children who are not married. People who are married do not have children.

Second, your "A childless marriage is just 2 people living together. It does not benefit society".

As a heterosexual man whose wife can't have children, I don't get many people insulting and denigrating my marriage. So good on you. It's revealing.

But since you do choose to insult and denigrate the marriages of childless couples, I think I'm entitled to respond by observing that you appear to be an unpleasant and not very perceptive person.

But you don't have an argument for banning gays and lesbians from marrying. I take it that although you like to micturate on childless marriages from on high, you don't actually want to ban them. Therefore your objection to childless marriages does not extend to wanting the law to prevent them. Therefore, it can'tt be the reason why you want the law to prevent gays or lesbians from marrying. It's called logical consistency.

Second, you've assumed that women aren't involved in gay marriages where one partner, or both, have custody of a child, and that men aren't involved in marriages between lesbians, where one or both partners has a child.

Your assumption is false. It provides evidence of ignorance of your chosen subject.

Your argue that allowing incestuous or underage marriages would cause social harm. As a supporter of the right to gay marriage, I agree. That's because they are different issues. So mentioning a different issue isn't actually an argument against allowing gay marriage, is it?

Finally, you write: "Gay marriage will lead to incest and polygamy." Thank you for typing that. It should be quoted back at you, any time you ever try to present yourself as a sensible person.

My childless marriage is just fine, by the way, and hasn't even led to bestiality, yet.

Robin :

28 Oct 2012 12:41:05am

Scott Stephens wrote: "Should schooling attend to the inculcation of certain virtues and values (and if so, which ones and why), or is education best restricted to the production of "economically useful machines," as Martha Nussbaum puts it?"

In stating a debate in terms of a false dichotomy like this, Scott is part of the problem rather than the answer.

I regard the instilling of values to my children as my job.

That does not imply that I want schools to be robot factories.

If we are to have authentic moral disagreements, let's at least make them intellectually honest.

also :

27 Oct 2012 10:18:47pm

From a Lacanian perspective it is man and woman who don't have 'sex'. Where as the rest of nature manages to get it on, it is human heterosexuals that are destined to fail in their attempts to relate to each other sexually. Thus the institution of marriage.

Martin Snigg :

27 Oct 2012 9:19:55pm

The ombudsmen for both the Washington Post and New York Times were adamant - liberal bias. The owners and editors refused to see it. Still Mr Stephens, thinking he is playing some sort of go between, gratuitously throws out Cardinal Pell, Mr Bernadi and Wallis as figment of his opposition. I'm sorry it just doesn't work

Colin :

29 Oct 2012 11:49:06am

Butters,The issue is why the State needs to or should recognise the relationship of any couple. Marriage is surely primarily about children and their rights to live in a stable environment where they know and are loved by their natural parents, who after all, have created them.

Homosexual couples can never create another human being. The best they can do is use the gametes of a third party to produce children. This however is surely unethical as it inevitably and deliberately denies the child a right to know and be loved by at least one of his/her natural parents. No ethical person would want to support such an injustice against another human being.

In the end, so called homosexual marriage can never be "equal" to heterosexual marriage, because there is no ethical way for homosexuals to create children. And as marriage is primarily about children there is no need for the State to recognise relationships that are intrinsically sterile.

rob1966 :

29 Oct 2012 12:19:43pm

Given that the Marriage Act, which legislates marriage in this country, makes no mention of children your supposition is patently (and blatently) wrong!

As always, you also conveniently forget infertile couples in your derision of same-sex couples and their "inability to conceive naturally" - or do you consider infertile heterosexual couples as meaningless as same-sex couples?

About the only "moral objection" that you have managed to highlight, is that of your ingrained bigotry.

Novelactivist :

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 10:15:53am

"...stateless societies that don't know anything about property rights?"Assuming that you're referring to societies such as the Zulu or Niugini peoples, you will find that they know EVERYTHING about property rights, even though they're not the same as ours.In the cases like the Sanh or Omonami, where there is no property, you'll find there is no formal marriage ritual either. There's a recognition of the couple equivalent to the Western "handfasting" or betrothal, but that's little more than a public recognition.

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 10:10:59am

Colin was wrong; "Marriage is surely primarily about children..."No, Colin, marriage is now and always was about property. Whether its the orderly transfer of property between generations or the orderly distribution of property in the event of the dissolution of a marriage as is more common today.

Just at the state is involved in the distribution of property after death, through the granting of probate on a will, so the involvement of the state in a marriage and therefore bringing the marriage under the wing of the Family Law is perfectly proper.

Homosexuals can own property and make wills so their property must also be brought under the fair and equitable provisions of Family Law and therefore the Marriage Act.

Children are either optional or (as in most cases) an unintended consequence. Your essay into biology is irrelevant to the question of equal rights to marriage.

John Smith :

30 Oct 2012 1:27:13pm

Gay marriage denies children the access to a mother and a father, which is a UN Human Right. A girl raised by 2 men cannot be properly taught about how her body is changing through puberty. A boy raised by 2 women wont be taken to the park to play rugby and football or go fishing. The fact is that each child needs a role model of each gender in their life, otherwise they will miss out on so many experiences.

Butters :

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 2:52:28pm

John Smith wandered again; "A girl raised by 2 men cannot be properly taught about how her body is changing through puberty.."

So all those male obsetricians and gynecolgists aren't qualified to advise "a girl"?And none of those female sports teachers in primary and secondary schools aren't qualified to teach a boy about rugby".

There are adequate role models in all parts of society - good grief, every footballer, netballer, financial adviser is being held up as a "role model" these days! I'm one myself.

We all miss out on certain experiences. Life's like that. Most of us can cope, it's only the inadequate personalities which have to resort to fairy stories to make sense of the world in which we live.

Chris N :

27 Oct 2012 10:46:36am

Interesting article but one which misses the point of the speech the PM made. She was not reacting in a pseudo-moralistic way at all. She was reacting to a long-running, very specific sexist and misogynistic attack on her in the Parliament, quite deliberately established by the Opposition leader and his team. All their language and rhetoric confirms it. And it hasn't even stopped since that speech.

What is also completely missed above, is the resonance that has occurred here since that - around the world too. We can intellectualise this as much as we like, but it really sounds to me like this sort of stuff is very much the male reaction to being called for their behaviour.

There is far too much put down in our society of women and especially women in power. And journalism is full of it.

Walter :

28 Oct 2012 11:12:13am

Good Point, but I don't see the article as a direct critisism of the Prime Minister. Personally, I thought he "misogynist" speech was outstanding.However one other point that was missed was that it was also a dirct response to Tony Abbott's call to have the gvernment support the removal of the speaker on the basis of his sexist, offensive behaviour..a case of..."are you kidding me...you of all people wanting to take the high ground on sexist behaviour!!! " and off she went, and rightly so. However it would be apoor political tactic for the PM to continue this as a strategy for all the reasons that Scott states in his article. I highly doubt that Tony Abbott is a misogynist in the true meaning of the word, I think he just has some very outdated and inaccurate stereotyping of women and is out of touch with the role of women in society and he will keep putting his foot in it because he doesn't "get it".I thought the most interesting point of Scott's article is the hyperbole of of language. A person who does not agree with all the arguments ofthe gay community is not necessarily a homophobe nor is someone who stereotypes women according to a 1950's cultural model necessarily a misogynist. Lets debate the specific issues and tone down the hyperbole.

Steve :

28 Oct 2012 5:49:16pm

Rubbish...women, deservedly so, have never had it so good..and the future is bright...comments about JG in parliament refer to her total inability to be anything like a decent PM...nothing to do with gender.

Society has gone crazy...due largely to the fact that there are no longer any moral absolutes. Nothing is absolutely right and nothing is absolutely wrong anymore......that's one sick philosophy.......

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 10:19:25am

Steve was nonsensical to claim; "...Nothing is absolutely right and nothing is absolutely wrong anymore."

Now that's jut not true, Steve. There's a system of laws which limits behaviour. That sets a minimal standard. If you want to apply a more strict standard to your own behaviour, that's acceptable. You can't impose it on anybody else, though.

Not My Real Name :

26 Oct 2012 10:09:48pm

Scott

Thanks for connecting 'misogyny' and 'homophobia' because I do think they are functioning in the same way in modern discourse. They are both neat ways of avoiding deeper moral argument. If you define your opponent's position as in some sense immoral (hatred of women or irrational fear of homosexuals) then you do away with the need to argue any further. In other words, you can 'win' an argument by shutting down your opponent through the right label. You don't have to actually deal with any substantive issues. In fact, you can portray yourself as morally superior for NOT arguing the issues with someone whose opinion is beyond the moral pale.

This sort of thing is so rife in our present debate, that I fear it has infected your own article. I refer to the reference to the 'unreconstructed bigotry' of Cory Bernardi and Jim Wallace. I don't know Cory Bernardi, but what I know of Jim Wallace doesn't lead me to think this is a very helpful label. It just does the same sort of thing as the words 'mysogynist' or 'homophobe'. Far better to interact with what people actually think and say than try to make up pejorative labels for them.

Mine's A Newt :

Not so long ago there was debate about allowing people of different races to marry.

The people who opposed the right of mixed-race couples to marry were certainly morally inferior, at least on that issue, to those who supported that right.

Same thing here.

We now think the people who opposed the legalisation of inter-racial marriage were bigots, who lacked human sympathy for couples who were different from them but in love. But in their time, the opponents of inter-racial marriage quoted the Bible (Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, etc) and were sure of their piety.

In just a few years, as I think the people on both sides of this argument know, we will feel similar puzzlement about the people who were cruel and blinkered enough to oppose the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The difficulty is that there are many moral arguments for allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (of which equality and simple human decency - ie refraining from being cruel - are the most obvious), and no moral arguments against.

There are only Bible quotes, which are morally irrelevant unless you are a Biblical fundamentalist, or a cherry-picker looking for bits to support bigotries held for other reasons.

So the two sides aren't morally equal, and it's pointless to pretend otherwise.

Mine's A Newt :

30 Oct 2012 1:24:04am

1 If your point was not that the two sides are morally equal, but that you should only criticise a position for immorality after demonstrating its immorality by argument, then I think you failed to make your point clearly.

2 I don't agree with your point. The anti-gay marriage side has never put up a coherent or consistent argument, and they've had plenty of time. It is perfectly reasonable to dismiss a position as bigotry when it is unsupported by any cogent arguments, and it just happens, by some odd coincidence, to support a well-known form of hatred and prejudice, in this case that directed against gays and lesbians. There comes a time, with bigotry, to show a little impatience with it. Starting with calling it what it is.

3 In my post I pointed out that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry offends against two moral values: it denies equality to gay and lesbians, and it is cruel. I also provided an argument by analogy, and noted that arguments from biblical texts are cherry-picked to support positions held for other reasons.

(To expand that last point: If we take the bible's hate for homosexuals as authoritative, then we must also take the bible's endorsement of sexual slavery, parents killing their children if they disobey, etc, as equally authoritative. Someone who picks one but not the others is not following the bible but cherry picking to support those prejudices that they want to hold.)

But advice to argue rather than assert is always useful. I thank you for it.

John Smith :

30 Oct 2012 1:37:02pm

All of those laws about killing children and pro-sexual slavery are in the old testament. In the New Testament when Jesus died on the cross, the old laws were made redundant. Thus only those laws stated in the New Testament are still to be followed. Paul does speak against homosexuality in the New Testament, but there is no mention of sexual slavery or supporting killing of others. Therefore those old rules (Now Judaism) no longer apply to Christians, but those contained in the New Testament do apply, such as that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that homosexuality is sinful.

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 2:56:14pm

The point you're missing, John Smith, is that those New Testament comments and restrictions only apply to Christians.It's immoral to try to impose those on other people who are not Christian. It's also illegal.

Mine's A Newt :

30 Oct 2012 3:37:18pm

The character Jesus, in the story attributed to Matthew, is made to say, "Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

The story attributed to Luke has Jesus say, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

So, at least according to the New Testament, they appear to be still in effect. I note Jesus' use of the future tense: the old laws "shall" not fall, till heaven and earth pass away.

In any case, the New Testament also endorses slavery, instructing slaves to obey their masters. Again, if you don't support that, but you do endorse the New testament's bronze age homophobia, you're cherry picking, as I said.

Mines A Newt :

30 Oct 2012 4:10:08pm

And in Matthew 15:4, Jesus is said to specifically condemn the Pharisees for not upholding the law that children who curse their parents should be put to death. So he does seem to think that the Old Testament laws still apply, specifically including the one about killing your children.

Obviously, anyone who took the Bible seriously on morality would be forced to behave as if they were criminally insane, so I'm not advocating biblical morality. I'm only saying that people who cherry pick the bits they want to support are not following the bible but using it to bolster their own prejudices.

Redge :

26 Oct 2012 8:54:32pm

Moral disagreement based upon whose morals?

We all look for the efficient word that describes our intention and misogynist merely one.

Atheist is another because it suits the Christian Lobby, which by the way does not include Catholics, yet ask any classified Atheist and he or she will describe themselves as non-believers. Atheist is a similar neat label, a label that assumes they have considered all aspects of some religion or other, and rejected them all. Something which is totally impossible.

The whole of the current Republican debate is based on saying something deceptive, anything, and expecting someone to disprove it. Just like religion.

Terrence :

28 Oct 2012 4:30:01pm

Redge. what you say is absolutely correct. There are various interests that seek to howl down dissent in much the same way that religion does. Feminism for example, for asserting that you can't believe in equality unless you are a feminist, even though the notion of equality has been around a lot longer than the feminist ideology. Christianity in the same way insists that if you are not a christian, you can't believe in God, even though the notion of a God has been around a lot longer than christianity. Feminists label you a misogynist (or sexist or male-chauvinist pig etc) in much the same way as christians who label you a pagan, atheist, devil-worshipper or destined to burn in hell for not falling in line with their beliefs. Homophobia is another one that can go a little too far at times, though to a lesser degree. Not withstanding the prejudice that homosexuals continue to endure, I have the right to point out that the issue of same sex parenting for example, is at this stage, a social experiment in much the same way that single parenting was. That's not homophobia. It's simply a case of, "Proceed with caution, children on board". I wish that we had applied that same level of caution to the issue of heterosexual parenting. We could certainly do with some radical improvements and who knows, gay parenting might be just the ticket. In the meantime, everything needs to be open to RATIONAL discussion and labelling people "Blasphemers" in the name of any religion, ideology or belief is counterproductive and dare I say it, not very bright. Having said all that, those who are clearly women-haters, men-haters, GLTB haters etc. should be required to explain their positions in order to expose it for what it is. The rest of us have legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Hudson Godfrey :

29 Oct 2012 2:04:05pm

If it is our intent specifically to guard against misappropriation of inaccurate labels then it falls to someone to criticise what the labels are code for. The idea that an atheist who was formerly Christian should be identified not just in those terms but perhaps with reference to the particular sect, (Methodist or Mormon, Catholic or Protestant... or Orthodox perhaps), has as its corollary the very collective use of the term Christian itself in political currency. The fact that people know Romney is a Mormon for example tells Catholics and Protestants alike that he's not one of them.

It seems a lot more accurate of an atheist to say that she doesn't believe in any gods than it does for a Mormon to feign solidarity with Unitarians.

It may well be the case that Americans are far from stupid enough to accept the apparent religious duplicity of Republicans yet no less inclined to embrace their other policy positions overall. After all it isn't as if Obama declares himself to be less religious than his opponent.

Mines A Newt :

But terms like misogynist, bigot and so on are both meaningful and useful. They do what words do, which is to name things, in this case things that really do exist.

And the fact is, that anyone who thinks that gay people are not entitled to equal rights, including the right to marry, IS a bigot.

You possibly saw Barry Cohen's piece in last week's Spectator, where he claimed he was about to explain why he opposed the right of gays to marry. He didn't actually come up with a reason, but in even a single short page he found space to use the term "nancy-boys".

I think he gave the game away, not just for him, but for other opponents of marriage equality.

Don't complain about the word; if you don't like being a bigot, grow up, investigate your prejudice, and re-think it. Most Australians already have.

Not My Real Name :

Yes, words like 'misogynist' and 'bigot' do have meanings but you have to use them with the meaning they have, not just throw them around willy nilly because they have convenient emotional overtones.

For instance, the word 'bigot' means that someone is unthoughtful, ignorant or prejudiced. So you can't call someone a bigot just because they disagree with your side of the debate over gay marriage. Many people who are against gay marriage have well thought out reasons for their position, so they are by definition not bigots (needless to say, the fact that one writer used a phrase you don't like, hardly counts as evidence that all those opposed to gay marriage are bigots).

So yes there is reason to complain about the word, or at least the way it is often misused.

Mine's A Newt :

Really? There are "well thought out reasons" for opposing the right of homosexual people to marry?

We keep hearing about these amazing "reasons" for opposing equality. But we never hear what those mysterious reasons actually are.

The few "reasons" we do hear are obvious and flimsy attempts to disguise bigotry towards gay and lesbian people, from the sort of person (like Barry Cohen) who can't manage for long without using the word "nancy-boy".

Not My Real Name :

No, I'm not playing that game. This is not a stream about gay marriage but about the use of labels like 'bigotry', which has indeed found its way into your post once again.

There's plenty on the internet arguing both sides of the case.

What interests me is the fact that you are setting yourself up to deny that anything in the nature of an unbigotted argument against gay marriage could exist. Indeed if you say that any reason put forward against gay marriage is simply a disguise for bigotry, then ipso facto you are not going to recognise any such argument as legitimate, or 'well thought out', no matter what an objective observer might think (notice by 'well thought out' I'm not trying to imply its correctness - I am merely describing it in a way that is the opposite of simple bigotry).

This is the very sort of problem which the original article is trying to address - the way that championing so called 'tolerance' can easily lead to the shutting down of deeper moral debate. The more you scream 'bigotry', or deny that the other side has any point to make, the more you make rational discussion of this issue impossible to carry out - and that can only have detrimental consequences for society as a whole.

Mine's A Newt :

So far from trying to deny you a voice, which would be what would happen if this stuff about "liberal censorship" wasn't nonsense, I invite you to make an argument.

You refuse to make an argument, but you do whine about being repressed.

I tell you what: if you think there's a good example of an anti-gay marriage argument somewhere on the internet, that isn't just bigotry, how about you give us the url?

Will that do?

In the meantime, let's just point out the obvious truth: it's not "censorship" to call nonsense and bigotry for what it is. It's speech. Free speech. Stephens' piece is actually against free speech, not against censorship.

Miowarra :

30 Oct 2012 10:30:56am

Such "arguments" NMRN, have to be considered and argued on a case-by-case basis.Upthread, Mike has trotted out the old "marriage is about children so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because of biology" argument, but since that argument is based on incorrect historical facts, it has been argued against and defeated.

One argument that hasn't appeared in this thread is "My god says gays can't marry" but that presupposed that followers of that god have the right to impose the restrictions of their belief system on people who are NOT followers. That's an argument that IS based in bigotry, to wit that "my beliefs are superior to and therfore override yours." That is an immoral proposition.

Butters :

John Smith :

30 Oct 2012 1:40:18pm

A bigot is someone who is 'utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion'. Therefore calling everyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot (because their views differ from yours) actually makes you a bigot. All the pro gay marriage activists call all opposition 'bigots' to silence them. But by doing that they are being bigots.

luke warm :

B. Ford :

26 Oct 2012 3:39:45pm

If misogyny is literally a hatred of women, what word accurately describes a hatred of women who exercise power and authority. No commentor seems to have addressed this point.It is interesting how the emotion differs between politics and the commercial world. Can anyone imagine Gail Jackson or Catherine Livingstone being subjected to the abuse and disrespect endured by Julia Gillard. The PM is to be admired for her resiliance.

Michael E :

I doubt that "authentic moral disagreement" would move us toward a "shared moral horizon", though it might reveal rhetorical opponents had more in common than usually admitted.

There is an assumption buried in this notion: the assumption that a shared moral horizon exists and that only inauthentic moral disagreement prevents it from being recognised.

Its not so. There is no shared moral horizon on the four examples of childlessness, homosexuality, schooling, and the vulnerable. These matters are adjudicated in the market place of ideas allowed in our liberal society.

I made this point and others yesterday but my post seems to have been moderated into oblivion.

John :

26 Oct 2012 12:04:14pm

PS: I also say that in the context of USA politics the Republicans deliberately signalled their intention to use this style of politics when they stated that they only had one intention, which was to do whatever it took to get rid of Barack Obama.

Such a strategy has also been used by Tony Abbott in his incarnation as mister No.

John :

26 Oct 2012 11:54:50am

I suggest that the 1999 book by Deborah Tannen titled The Argument Culture - Stopping America's War of Words provides an excellent examination of this topic.

I say that in the context of USA politics it was those on the right side of the culture wars divide that deliberately cultivating this now toxic syndrome. Indeed in her book Deborah gives specific examples of such a deliberate strategy by leading "conservative" noise makers.

I further suggest that the now 24/7 results of this toxic syndrome is fully discussed in the two books by David Brock - The Republican Noise Machine, and Blinded By the Right. It is also pointed to in the recent book Sideshow by Lindsay Tanner.

It also seems to be that the Liberal party here in Australia has deliberately employed the same argumentative style into Australia politics, especially in Canberra. Such a style is even signalled in the title of the book by Tony Abbott: namely Battlelines.

Pam :

26 Oct 2012 8:15:22am

In a recent essay, Linda Jaivin confessed to being a 'graphomaniac' - the condition being an uncontrollable impulsion to write, it's from the Greek word for writing and madness. It's also a close relative of 'typomania' - an obsession with seeing your name in print or your writings published. The blogosphere and Twitterverse/Facebook are saturated with these conditions. So it's little wonder that our political discourse has also reached the depths apparent in the Gillard/Abbott exchanges. Jaivin wrote that a writer who wants to harness and encourage the flourishing of creative ideas and complicated thinking needs to step off the train running at breakneck speed i.e. a willingness to be alone, to read with attention, to think deeply and to make space for serendipity and write as slowly as it takes. Sound advice.

Hudson Godfrey :

25 Oct 2012 10:44:08pm

cont....

As for the feckless social media they're only part of the equation, here we are being serious on a blog no less. It can't be all bad!

Orwell was of course always right, whereas Slavoj Zizek makes many valid points most of which are too scary to contemplate too seriously or for too long. On this occasion he may as well have referred to the "Nanny State" directly while bemoaning "political correctness gone mad!" for all the good it does us to hear it said more cleverly. When it comes to using different words for the same thing we'll probably use marriage to mean gay civil union, and misogyny to mean antipathy towards feminism, but even if we go so far as to expunge racist and bigot from the lexicon we'll still need language to describe people who bear those character flaws, and I hope for the sake of those who they hurt that we're no less inclined to use it.

Bringing it back into the Australian political landscape you can't have authentic moral disagreement in the complete absence of conviction politics that occurs when the imperative is surrendered entirely to the polls. These past years of minority Labour government have been given over to a perpetual election campaign which derails any real sense of mandate on the one hand or accountability on the other.

Hudson Godfrey :

25 Oct 2012 10:43:34pm

To your questions Scott I could only offer an opinion since I don't know that they require an ethical dialectic to solve.

It doesn't matter whether politicians have children, though as a sample of society they're probably more likely to than not. It is a representative government after all and we can stand to be represented by a somewhat diverse bunch, drawn as they are from the kind of miscreants who embrace that ignoble profession.

It is abundantly possible that we should accord honour to same sex marriages without necessarily failing to notice that what we're embracing is indeed a more diverse definition of the institution. The world did not shift on its axis as a result of interracial or interfaith marriages being allowed, or when civil marriages came into vogue. Divorce, then even no fault divorce and the increasing prevalence of de-facto couples all enjoy a reasonable level of acceptance within Australian society. I do not expect same sex marriage to follow a vastly different trajectory.

Schooling is the less formal term for education, a process of providing students with the knowledge and information they will require to enter the world with sufficient skills and wit to make their way in it. Chief among these should be the faculty for critical thinking, and least among them the kind of clotted inculcation aimed at restricting their horizons to repeating the mistakes of their progenitors.

Your last question seems ill formed to me. I would on an interpretation that simplifies it to do obligations exist in relation to others who petition it of us or only when we choose to hear, say that they do apply to the least of our citizens, to refugees and even to the unborn in accordance with their mothers' representations on their behalf. I suspect the principle of reciprocity applies to many of these albeit indirectly, but I think we're also challenged to recognise that a moral ought perceived on our own part does not equate to a moral imperative to be imposed upon others whose perspective often differs greatly from ours, unless there are of course far more direct consequences affecting our own interests. Live and let live has its corollary in dignify and be dignified or respect and be respected. Its why tolerance in secular societies is the least worst solution.

Daniel :

25 Oct 2012 7:20:12pm

Oh, heaven help us. The nasty right is really caused by the self-righteous left. But there in the middle, endlessly grappling with meta-ethics, is Scott Stephens holding up the scales of truth, just without any blindfold.

Now, is "misogyny" just another part of the hyperbolisation (is that now a neologism?) of language, like "homophobe", "fascist", "bigot" and "racist"? (Note the correct punctuation, ABC writers and editors!) Scott simply asserts this, then segues into bloody Sizek again and the latest tome on civility, liberalism and the fate of human decency, etc.

Look, whether it's those who want to do the 'dictionary duel at 20 paces' over what the Greek parsing of misogyny really means (HATRED of ALL WOMEN), or this latest twist on the phenomenon, they are almost always men (save for the odd News Corp. hack who is female). Anything familiar here?

As it happens, "fascist" and "bigot" are rarely used anymore (compared to the '70s and '80s), but "racist" has changed quite significantly, surely as anyone knows, because almost all the racists now insist certain cultures are inferior, not races (who hasn't heard someone say "Islam isn't a race"). But it is very often the same groups with just the same hate.

In fact, "homophobe" has obviously changed, but the change is quite similar to why misogyny has changed.

I think most serious analysts will say that not all of those who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes, but a hell of a lot of them are, doubly so with those who baptize their objections with either theological arguments or dubious statistics. The "some of my best friends are gay" line doesn't work anymore. And the closer you probe those who will deny they are homophobic (whether psychologically or over several drinks), the more they can be hoisted on their own petard.

This is much more the case, but even more subtle, on the issue of misogyny. People can love something and hate it to. Any women will tell you that hate and idolatry are closely related, as will any addict, and any remotely sophisticated theologian, for that matter. Which is why psychologists and evolutionary biologists and cultural theorists and gender studies academic all quite happy with the sophistication of the use of misogyny over the last 30 years. And, no, you can't just blame the self-righteous feminist left from the '70s.

So while trying to weave his way through certain culture wars and come up with some profound statement on the nature of post-fin de siècle western culture, we get Mr Stephens tossing out the line about the 'promiscuous way that Julia Gillard and many on the left have been throwing around the term "misogynist"'. Now I don't need a dose of French cultural theory to see a Freudian slip here, because I can't imagine a woman ever writing that sentence, in

Hudson Godfrey :

26 Oct 2012 12:29:31pm

Daniel,

Very well thought out comments.

I suspect our contemporary use of misogyny is a marriage of convenience between a sense of the pejorative and the desire to declaim antipathy towards feminism. The inference is that some version of support for gender equality is by now so widely accepted as to attain the status of a political icon. A dangerous state of affairs indeed for supporters of the feminist revolution who regard its work as incomplete.

Similarly the sour lament that "Islam isn't a race" refers us to some other terms that have been coined within the last decade. The neat juxtaposition of Islamofacism on the one hand and Islamophobia on the other reflect the fact that bigots only ever really need one minority at a time to repress in order to make themselves feel superior. It is not to deny that Islam has its problems that we may choose to condemn bigoted reactionaries. It is instead to say that two wrongs don't make a right.

And as you rightly observe that other pejorative term "homophobia" probably does apply to a good many people who oppose gay rights in the same sense that a few anti-feminist misogynists might actually hate women. The problem being that anyone identifying themselves as being on the receiving end of any of these pejorative terms, there can be little doubt that they know who they are, will nonetheless immediately refute the accusation of hate speech replacing it with some milder form of disagreement, "I'm not a .... but..." So that using a form of insult that they're inclined to reject may actually perpetuate the disagreement itself.

The incredibly harmful potential of the notion of a singular truth is that it can be used to imply that moral conclusions reached by an individual or group somehow become the imperative that all others must conform to. And this is never more diabolical than when used to support self-serving notions of superiority. Whether it's the patriarchy, theocratic tradition or just straight out isolationism closing ranks against those minorities who oppose them the conclusion is always similarly flawed. They solipsistically choose to disregard the views and perspectives of all others whose sentiments don't resonate with their own. It is I'm afraid the rump of those who persist in their views all the while declaring that the one thing they can't tolerate is intolerance. The none too subtle implication being that they expect a level of tolerance they have no intention of reciprocating.

If is a foil to these attitudes then it may be just to say that there's a difference between being tolerant and being cowed into mute acceptance of that with which you do not agree. So that it would be remiss not to add that secular democracies flourish on the observance of that very principle of free speech, with or without a pejorative smattering.

Robyn :

27 Oct 2012 10:43:34am

Ms Gillard's labeling of Mr Abbott as a "misogynist" did offend me. Not because I am in any doubt that Mr Abbott is an unreconstructed sexist, but because of the consequent loss of meaning from that erstwhile pointed and pithy word.

It's all very well for Mr Stephens to bemoan the hijacking of the debate by grammarians, but how now, in public discourse, will we distinguish the merely backward babble of a Tony Abbott from the psychotic utterances of a Todd Akin? Are we all going to have to add "in the original sense of the word" to be clear about what we mean? Alas, poor "misogyny"!(in the original sense of the word). I knew it, Horatio. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

Hudson Godfrey :

28 Oct 2012 11:25:29am

Robyn,

I'd be interested to hear from you, regardless of the language, whether you really think that many people actually hate women. Despite a watering down and conscription of the word "misogyny" to mean a kind of antipathy towards feminism in general, I'm somewhat hopeful that the term in its original sense to mean actually hating women seldom applies. I would have hoped that we could afford to be without it, or at least to adopt that second context when framed in political terms rather than socio-psychological ones.

I think that its use as a pejorative epithet may well be problematic if it only manages to cause those on the receiving end to wriggle out of the accusation with a few well-chosen weasel words. The result of those protestations usually being a kind of reaffirming, if in calculatedly milder tones, of the kind of views the accuser might most have hoped to admonish. The frequent and incautious use of such labels is as seldom persuasive of the transgressors as it is in animating those already converted to the opposing view to ostracise them. There's a sense of the race to the bottom in that, which is to be avoided, even if I very much do take the side of those who want it said and said unequivocally that sexism is something up with which we will not put.

Robyn :

That's a big question Hudson. Many men are contemptuous of women to a greater or lesser degree. When the degree is greater, it can feel a lot like hate if you're on the receiving end.

Most men who treat women with contempt, will also profess to "love" them. However, what they "love" about women has much to do with their expectations of what "real" women should be. Some women share this self-prisoning view. These are the people who have, as you say "a kind of antipathy to feminism in general". You're right that it's not misogyny, although it's pretty unpleasant anyway.

However, out there in la-la land, some people take a step beyond "a kind of antipathy to feminism in general" into a world of delusion in which women who don't conform to their expectations, aren't human. That's misogyny!

I suspect it's more widespread than either of us would like. Framed in political terms, it's the institutionalized and violently enforced abrogation of the human rights of women in countries we're glad we don't have to live in. In socio-psychological terms, it's the bloke next door who beats up his wife when she answers back.

But it isn't Tony Abbott!

I too see the use of hyperbole and innuendo in public discourse as a race to the bottom.

Hudson Godfrey :

29 Oct 2012 9:50:39pm

Thanks Robyn,

There's a very good point you've helped me to realise here. The real danger with this recent re-purposing of the word misogyny might be in the limiting nature of assuming that only men want to denigrate feminism.

I would have thought that it was obviously fallacious when making generalisations about men who profess to love women but hate feminists to assume that the women they love and the feminists that hate are the same people.

As I understand the term a real misogynist doesn't seriously entertain the prospect that any women will conform to his expectations. He regards all women as sub-human by mere dent of their gender. That isn't Abbott.

As I understand what the same term is used as political code for though, it is Abbott. When I look at some of the statements he's made in the past I'm convinced of it.

And may I just say that your paragraph on the political and the social-psychological when read in terms of challenges to feminism seems to me to be exactly correct.

And no, I'm not about to ask Abbott the classic loaded question, "When did you stop beating your wife?", that would indeed signal the start of a race to the bottom. What I'd say instead is that the big issues like human rights and violence against women that you correctly identified aren't the only issues. The myriad smaller and medium concerns when offended against still manage to distinguish some individuals as more sympathetic towards women than others. That's where I think Abbott is in trouble here.

Chris W :

28 Oct 2012 12:13:04pm

After all the crap and hyperbolic rubbish Mr Abbott has dished out, I'm not worried or offended by Ms Gillard's critique. While I also hope misogyny's meaning and sting is not watered down/debased by overusage, may this episode heighten consciousness and undo "merely backward babble". _If_ some word usage shifts were the price for less sexism, then let's pay it (Todd Akin can be put with the Taliban). But I don't think that's actually the case and "sexist" is and should be sufficiently pejorative (and clear about the issues).If people try to shut people up/down with labels as though "forehand winners", there's going to be standoffs and reactions rather than productive change, much as Dr Stephens argues.

foxlike :

25 Oct 2012 5:54:52pm

Seems significant to me that public commentators have only stepped in to take charge of this 'debate' since Julia Gillard used the term misogynist - as well she might. The years of insult and vilification of her were of no interest to you until she reacted to it. Women, however, have noted and discussed it, because it happens to all of us, to more or less a degree. Your piece is interesting reading, but belittles the reality of all women's lives. Nothing new there.

Mine's A Newt :

28 Oct 2012 10:34:21am

Exactly. What people like The Australian's ludicrous columnists don't like is that they're no longer the only boys with a media platform.

A woman calls them on their contemptuously sexist nastiness (that is, misogyny), and gets a huge wave of support on the net. They hated that. It wasn't supposed to happen. And it wasn't mediated by the self-appointed "opinion-makers".

They're shocked. They find that ordinary people can by-pass them, and - worse - that many people think the likes of Peter Jensen, say, or Piers Akermann, are ludicrous people with unpleasant views.

So you get old men shouting at the internet, afraid of losing their power. And Scott Stephens calling it "censorship" when people exercise their right of reply.

2MuchIdeology :

25 Oct 2012 5:02:25pm

These perfectly worthy topics for discussion are nowadays prostituted for wowserism. They are a magnet for extreme views.

It's a pity those who cry and mysoginist' and 'racist' at the drop of a hat don't see themselves as the exact equivalent of real mysoginists and racists, just with the boot on the other foot. They are equally motivated by hatred and like all people with hatred in their eyes, they see things that don't really exist and fail to see things that do exist.

lemon-lyman :

25 Oct 2012 5:01:29pm

Thanks Scott. I miss your contributions to this site. Alongside of your insights I would add that our contemporary political climate is such that politicians have learned it is far more 'effective' to win an argument (by whatever means possible) than to actually make one. This is not helped by professional media's fascination with scandal, controversy and promotional soundbytes... In the end we end up with the sort of public discourse that we deserve... Another downside to the banal liberal democracy that we eventually perpetuate by our own inaction... Words such as 'respect' and 'dignity' do not have to be code for the pervasive censorship of 'political correctness' - they can mean so much more than that - and allow for 'truth-telling' to take place - truth telling that is willing to offend in order to create space for 'goodness' to grow... But then again - as a white, middle class, heterosexual male - what would I know...

Redge :

26 Oct 2012 9:09:41pm

"Current political climate"... "Respect," ..."dignity" these are all weasel words for manipulating the reaction of the offended. I've just been reading about King O'Malley and his general deceit and manipulation of the public. Most people do not want to hear the facts and will do anything to muddy the waters, they want to hear euphemisms and cliche so that they do not have to face reality or get to the point. Truth telling can be very rude to those who would rather not hear it and generally it is so abrasive that it loses votes. Goodness knows what this says about Australian voters in relation to self-deception, but it's not good.

lemon-lyman :

28 Oct 2012 6:33:54pm

Thankyou Redge for highlighting our current problem so succinctly... When 'dignity' and 'respect' are labeled as 'weasel words for manipulating the reaction of the offended' - we catch a glimpse of how far we have descended into the abyss... Truth telling in relation to policy debate may be necessarily offensive - but surely it can rise above 'name-calling'. For the most part - political rhetoric has been degraded to the extent where 'lazy' references to a person's appearance or personality have replaced the contest of ideas that our county so desperately needs... In other words if we are going to offend each other - lets do so over comments that are serious and engaging - rather than those that are crass and petty...

M2M :

25 Oct 2012 5:00:16pm

An interesting article which unfortunately fails at a couple of critical points. The context is vital to the meaning of language. In your piece, you seem to suggest that the PM's misogynist came out of the thin air. It was actually a response by someone who clearly had had enough and wasn't taking any more - there was nothing promiscious about it. The second point is that words such as "misogynist", "homophobe" and "bigot" are short hand in a rapidly moving world. They certainly have their drawbacks as you have pointed out but they also tend to focus the debate as the "misogynist" comment did. If you followed the impact that this speech clearly had on so many Indian women that the PM met during her recent trip, you would have seen how empowered they felt that a female leader had stood up and put up. While I would probably agree with you comments as a debating position, I felt that it missed something of the nitty grittiness of how improvements in this world of our are actually achieved.

Simon of Alice :

26 Oct 2012 7:27:24pm

So. Let all of us makeup our own meaning for words described/defined in the dictionary!Don't yuo think our poor teachers have enogh problems at the moment? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for our "leaders" to use the correct terminology or description/definition on the first place?Then the "dictionary meaning" wouldn't need to be changed.

Chris W :

28 Oct 2012 12:22:21pm

Actually most dictionaries needed no update. Probably the Macquarie is playing catchup "after the party"/reactively because it's understaffed.And there's certainly nothing new about hyperbolae in politics & old and new media, including due to MrAbbot, although it would be great if that changed.

On the Wider Web

In his vastness and mobility, G.K. Chesterton continues to elude definition: He was a Catholic convert and an oracular man of letters, a pneumatic cultural presence, an aphorist with the production rate of a pulp novelist. Poetry, criticism, fiction, biography, columns, public debate - the phenomenon known to early-20th-century newspaper readers as "GKC" was half cornucopia, half content mill.

Unfortunately, coverage of this debate by the mass media is typically one-sided and emotive. Viewers, listeners, and readers are subjected to a succession of heart-rending human interest stories of sick or paralysed people who want assisted suicide. As the saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads." These stories seem designed not only to tug on public emotion, but to tug it in one direction: toward legalization. To the extent that opposing views are aired at all, they are often caricatured as "religious" - despite the fact that legalization has long been opposed by secular bodies like the World Medical Association.

About the Editor

Scott Stephens

Scott Stephens is the Religion and Ethics editor for ABC Online. Before joining the ABC he taught theology for many years, and even did a stint as a parish minister with the Uniting Church in Australia. He has written extensively on the intersections among philosophy, theology, ethics and politics, as well as on modern atheism's dependence on the Christian legacy. He is a regular contributor to The Drum, Eureka Street and the Times Literary Supplement. He has edited and translated (with Rex Butler) two volumes of the Selected Works of the highly influential philosopher and cultural critic, Slavoj Zizek - including The Universal Exception, which was named by The Guardian newspaper one of its 'Books of the Year' in 2007.

Best of abc.net.au

Meditations for Holy Week

One of the world's most influential theologians explores Jesus's journey into a far country.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.